BALLSTON-VIRGINIA SQUARE

Civic Association Newsletter

January/February 1995 - Volume 18, No.
5

Question Of The Month

In the November/December 1994 Newsletter, the Executive Committee
reported the results of the written survey responses to eight
issue areas of potential concern to the Ballston-Virginia Square
neighborhoods. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the 70 total responses
indicated that local real estate taxes was a concern (36%) or a
critical problem (26%). Because the written survey results
reflected significant concern about local real estate taxes and
the County expects to have a budget shortfall this year of over
$15 million (due to continued decreases in the total taxable
value of commercial properties estimated at over $1 billion in
total assessed values by County officials since 1991 and other
factors), the February Question of the Month is: What would
you like the County's real estate tax rate raised to? If you
don't agree to an increase in real estate taxes, should the
County cut spending or increase other taxes? Tell us your view
on how to solve the budget shortfall expected this year. By
February 15th, call the Member Information Line 528-1887, select
menu option one, and record your survey response. Without
disclosing personal information, we shall publish the results in
the next issue of the Newsletter.

Lincoln Properties Company Set Back By SEC Decision

TR Vermont Corporation, through the management company of Lincoln
Properties Company, is currently requesting approval for a site
plan proposal in our neighborhood. The intent of the
company is to be able to respond to the Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC's) call for alternative sites to its present
D.C. location. However, according to the Arlington Journal in
its January 20th article "West Ballston site dropped from SEC
list" by Michelle J. Meyers, officials of the Securities Exchange
Commission announced yesterday, that they have dropped Arlington
off of its list of potential relocation sites for its
headquarters office currently located in Washington, D.C.
At our meeting, we shall have a presentation from the developer's
representatives.

TR Vermont Corporation, through the management company of Lincoln
Properties Company, is currently requesting approval for a site
plan proposal in our neighborhood. The intent of the
company is to be able to respond to the Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC's) call for alternative sites to its present
D.C. location. However, according to the Arlington Journal in
its January 20th article "West Ballston site dropped from SEC
list" by Michelle J. Meyers, officials of the Securities Exchange
Commission announced yesterday, that they have dropped Arlington
off of its list of potential relocation sites for its
headquarters office currently located in Washington, D.C.
The article states that the SEC "winnowed down its list of bids
from more than 10 sites around the Capital Beltway to five sites
within the nation's capital." Ms. Meyers indicates, however,
that Bill Hickey, Executive Vice President of Lincoln Properties
Company, which bid the proposed Ballston site, said "he's not
giving up."
The request, as it currently stands, is for a 12 story, 660,835
square foot office building that would be located on the triangle
of land bounded by Wilson Boulevard, North Glebe Road and Fairfax
Drive. (This is the area next to the second lot owned by NRECA.
The site is currently bisected by N. Vermont Street running
between Fairfax Drive and Wilson Boulevard.) A building of this
size would certainly be the largest highrise in Ballston, and
would be about 25% larger than Stafford Place I, which currently
houses the National Science Foundation.
The building would have a height of 170 feet, which is permitted
under the C-O-A zoning. There would be parking provided for 646
car in an underground garage. In addition to the usual office
and computer space, the building would house the SEC's reference
room. Currently, the SEC employs approximately 2,000 people at
their D.C. facility.
The application contains a number of requests for "special
exceptions" and raises several questions:

The applicant is requesting that the "ancillary space," such
as meeting rooms and storage space, not count in the total floor
area. This in essence increases the allowable size of the
building, and, depending upon the space deemed "ancillary" could
set a new precedent for other requests.

The application also asks for .25 FAR of bonus density for
the site. This is a rather large bonus, and the County should
consider what benefits to the citizens of Arlington would warrant
granting of such a request.

The site plan would affect the surface parking for the
building that currently houses the Immigration Office. What are
the plans to replace the parking that would be taken away from
this building?

With over 2,000 employees, and numerous visitors, the 626
parking spaces proposed seems grossly inadequate. How is this
low figure justifiable?

What amount of traffic will such a huge building generate in
our neighborhood?

This building will be at the tip of Ballston, and hence will
need to create an appropriate gateway to our neighborhood and the
adjoining Stonewall Jackson area. What architectural provisions
have been made for this?

The land for this proposed building carries a C-O-A zoning
designation, meaning that each block be mixed use -- have both a
residential and a commercial component. The current proposal is
for commercial only. Approval of such a site plan would set a
dangerous precedent for other yet-undeveloped C-O-A blocks.

While it is anticipated that the occupant of this building,
if built, will be the SEC, we have no guarantee of that, and
certainly less after the above Arlington Journal article. Site
plans usually exist exclusive of occupants -- what will happen if
this site plan is approved, and the SEC does not occupy the
building?

In order to meet certain deadlines set previously by the SEC
before its decision to drop Arlington as a potential site, this
site plan proposal is moving through the County planning process
more quickly than usual. The first of at least two Site Plan
Review Subcommittee meetings for this proposal was held on
January 17.

Representatives of the applicant will make a presentation to our
membership at the February 1st meeting.

It was originally planned that this project would be heard by the
Planning Commission on February 21, 1995 and then by the County
Board on Saturday, February 25, 1995. However, according to
the above Journal article, "County planner Robert Klute said he
got unofficial word yesterday that Lincoln will request a 30-day
deferral on its site plan approval, probably pushing County Board
action back until April." Representatives of the applicant,
Lincoln Properties Company, will make a presentation to our
membership at the February 1st meeting. What are the views of
the civic association members regarding this proposed site plan?
If you have any comments or questions about the proposed project,
we invite you to bring them to the Wednesday, February 1st
Membership meeting, to be held at the Costa Verde Restaurant, 946
North Jackson Street (across from the Merit Gas Station at the
intersection of Wilson Boulevard, North 10th Street, and North
Fairfax Drive).

President's Message -- Are We Becoming The Used Car Capital
Of The Region?

At first you may have hardly noticed, but little by little used
car lots appear to be taking over our neighborhood. Yes, its
true, our area is becoming the used car center of the entire
metropolitan area and beyond. We counted them--not 5 or 10 but
(at last count) 30 used car facilities right in our immediate
neighborhood (if you include 10th Street and Wilson Boulevard two
blocks to the Clarendon side of town). From Glebe Road down
Fairfax Drive, along 10th Street, back up Wilson Boulevard, we
are virtually surrounded by them.

There are now so many used car dealerships that they have reached
what many in retailing refer to as the "critical mass", necessary
to attract customers from afar. Prospective customers who may
not want to travel far to shop at one or two facilities, will
come to this used car paradise to "one-stop shop till they drop"
for the used car of their dreams. And they are coming, from as
far away as Maryland, further points in Virginia, and the
District. Indeed, a large portion of the advertising budget of
these used car dealers in our area is aimed not at our local
community but at potential customers throughout the Metro area.
I talked to one salesman who indicated to me that approximately
70% of his prospects are from outside of the County on any given
day. In summary, our County both allows for the proliferation of
these "lots" and offers a convenient, nearby and easily reached
marketplace, especially via the Metro rail.

Its not unfair to reason that as many as 50 to 100 potential
buyers may visit the typical lot each day. While not all 30 used
car lots may attract that kind of business, even a conservative
figure will suggest that this used car center is now attracting
many thousands of people each week who were previously unfamiliar
with our community. For the serious minded buyer, a least one
test drive is probably in order and of course, our neighborhood
becomes the test drive track for all of these rides around town.
This adds to the traffic, and I will suggest, the safety concerns
of our citizens as a lot of people who are unfamiliar with these
vehicles and our traffic signals are not cruising our streets.

Furthermore, the used car business is a large cash business.
Walk around these lots and you will find that these are not all
inexpensive models--some go for $15,000 to $25,000 and more.
According to a 1988 study by "Used Cars Today," a trade
publication, the average used car dealership in the U.S. today
grosses well above $1 million in revenues each year.

If you think that this used car lot phenomenon has always been
with us and its no big deal, I say you are wrong--this phenomenon
is growing and could get much bigger. New used car dealerships
are still arriving and squeezing into spaces that you never
expected--just in the last two months we have seen two new
additions (on Glebe and 10th Street) almost spring forth and fill
with cars overnight, ready for business. And there is no reason
to expect it will cease. There are afterall, over 250 models of
both domestic and imported cars in the U.S., a few dozen car
rental companies who must sell fleets of used cars each year and
we haven't even touched the minivans, utility vehicles and pick-
up trucks which have become such popular new models in recent
years. "Leasing lots" could also arise. There's no shortage of
extra lots in the community, and with a County policy which seems
to encourage the proliferation of these used car dealerships--no
end in sight if you ask me.

But, you may ask, what about all this talk about preserving the
Metro corridor for mixed use, quality residential, office and
retail development? Right out the window it seems, when it comes
to controlling the "used car kings". Or perhaps this is the
County's Economic Development Commission's idea of economic
growth? Now some misguided souls (even in our Civic Association)
defend the rights of used car dealers and suggests that this is a
good development for our neighborhood. But its my belief that
this is exactly the wrong kind of business that we should be
attracting and promoting here. On the whole, many of these used
car lots are eyesores with advertising, lighting, and signage
that convey the opposite of a quality residential/retail image.
And don't take my word nor the word of other residents who live
here--instead ask nearby business owners and operators what they
think from clothing stores, dry cleaners, and restaurants.

No, I'm not suggesting that we run present used car dealers out
of town, but could it be that we have made it too good for them?
Could we find a way to control their proliferation, or put limits
on their ability to assume entire neighborhood blocks. We must
do something before Ballston/Virginia Square becomes known
throughout the land as one big used car lot.

BVSCA To Go On Information Superhighway

The Civic Association will soon be on the Internet. The
Executive Committee is studying various options to post the
Association's Newsletter onto the Net, and share information with
other Civic groups. We are looking at both basic dial in shell
accounts and SLIP type service. Watch for further announcements
in the next two months. If you are a member and a knowledgeable
Nettie, if you have some thoughts to contribute, you may e-mail
to samarlaw@access.digex.net. You may also fax your comments to
(202) 785-1912 or leave voice mail on MILTN, menu option 8.

BVSCA December 1994 Christmas Party Big Success

Our second annual Christmas Party for our members and guests on
December 14, 1994 at The Jefferson's Monticello Room was a big
success. We had 63 adults in attendance and 3 children
present to enjoy the fine food, wine, and song. The Executive
Committee expresses the Association's appreciation to The
Jefferson and its Director of Catering, Rana Bhalla, for his
superior organization of this event, the excellent food, and the
outstanding service provided to our members and guests. The
Executive Committee would also like to thank our many advertisers
for their continued support of this event and our guest pianists,
who entertained us with Christmas, classical, and contemporary
music.

The Proposed North Quincy Street Concept Plan To Be
Considered By The County Board

On February 4th, the proposed North Quincy Street Concept Plan
will be considered by the Arlington County Board. All BVSCA
members and interested citizens are invited to attend and give
their thoughts. The N. Quincy Street extension lies immediately
to the south of our Association boundary. Our neighborhood will
be heavily impacted by what occurs along either side of the
extension as N. Quincy Street is the east/west centerline of our
neighborhood area.

The Executive Committee met and heard a presentation of the
staff's proposed N. Quincy Street Concept Plan at our September
1994 meeting. The staff made a presentation of the proposed
Concept Plan at our October 1994 membership meeting. We followed
up that presentation with a written survey of our 238 dues paid
members.

We received 70 responses to our written Membership survey. Of
our responding members, 62% opposed the proposed plan.

The most often stated reason for opposition to the proposed plan
was the potential for an overall increase in density and heights
in the area between the west side of the N. Quincy Street
extension and the east side of N. Randolph Street, and the spill
over impacts that will be felt in our neighborhood. Our members
expressed support for the view that the tallest buildings, in the
area covered by the Concept Plan, should front on the east and
west side of the N. Quincy Street extension. Extending potential
building heights to 12 stories along the east side of N. Randolph
Street is not supported as the structures immediately across, on
the west side, of N. Randolph Street are three and four stories
tall.

Consistent with and extrapolated from the membership comments,
the following two detailed points are expressed by the Executive
Committee. First, with respect to the "Note 14. Development of
this area shall be consistent with the North Quincy Street
Concept Plan," which is stated in the staff's November 17, 1994
draft report on this matter, the Executive Committee believes
this to be a mistake and the source for future controversy
between the County and the development community and other land
owners. The reason is simply that zoning sets development rights
and property owners believe that that is the legal authority that
they need to look to, not a "Concept Plan." While there have
been a proliferation of so called "Concept" plans over the recent
planning time frame, it has always been our Civic Association's
view that the concept planning for the two Metro station
areas within our neighborhood were to be properly reflected in
the Ballston Sector Plan, and in the Virginia Square Sector Plan.
Thus, there is no need for this proposed Concept Plan. Should
there be a genuine need for these proposals, the Executive
Committee believes the proper process is to follow the procedures
for amendment to the two Sector Plans, not to graft onto them in
this ad hoc and confusing manner.

Second, with respect to the proposed amendment to the General
Land Use Plan to add a triangle symbol to indicate the general
location of open space to be bounded by the extended N. Quincy
Street, Wilson Boulevard, North Pollard Street and 5th Street
North, the Executive Committee does not support concentrating all
of the open space on the east side of the extended North Quincy
Street. As one of the neighborhoods that will be most severely
affected by the flow through effects of the future development to
occur in that area, the concentration of the open space, in the
location proposed in the staff report, serves to more severely
burden our neighborhood. At a minimum, a portion of the proposed
open space should also be located on the west side of the
extended N. Quincy Street. This, more equitable approach, would
serve to moderate some of the density effects that would be more
directly felt by the Ballston-Virginia Square neighborhoods. Our
position on the proposed North Quincy Street Concept Plan was
provided to the Arlington County Planning Commission for their
meeting of January 25, 1995.

The complete text of what was presented for the Arlington County
Planning Commission's Agenda schedule for January 25th, item 14,
follows for your consideration.

Arlington Blue Top Cab's Proposed Project To Be Considered By
The County Board

At the next Arlington County Board meeting of February 4th,
representatives of the Arlington Blue Top Cab will seek approval
for their proposed project, including the residential-commercial
("RC") zoning that will be needed and the timing of the
residential component to be built. The Arlington Blue Top Cab
plans to build a group of 5 townhouses at 1016 North Randolph
Street, the lot known as the Kelly House, and build an
underground garage under these townhouses for the specific
purpose of repairing their taxicabs only. The rest of the
property will be used as parking for the townhouses.

The Arlington Blue Top Cab's owner, Mr. Farouq Massoud, indicated
that the primary contributing factor to the Arlington Blue Top
Cab's proposed project is the Quincy Street extension project,
which will force their existing taxicab repair facility in the
path of the street extension to be relocated. Because of limited
capital, the owner stated that they plan to build the commercial
component before the residential units are completed. This
company has been an outstanding neighbor and has assisted
our community in many ways by providing taxi-cab service;
participating in the Neighborhood Watch Program vis-a-vis their
taxi-cab drivers who routinely contact our local police if they
see any suspicious activity; and limiting the number of taxis
parked at their commercial facility. The members present at this
Membership meeting voted strongly in support of this motion to
support the Arlington Blue Top Cab project. Only one member
voted in opposition to the project.

The civic association has formally recommended that the Site Plan
Review Committee consider favorably the BVSCA's motion in support
of the Arlington Blue Top Cab's proposed project and recommended
that the Arlington County Planning Commission do the same. Also,
we recommended that Arlington Blue Top Cab be granted an
exception to the normal practice of developing the residential
component first before the commercial and the normal residential
commercial ratio for RC zoning, because of the hardship it would
entail to rebuild the existing Arlington Blue Top Cab
commercial building into a smaller facility to meet the current
RC zoning ratio requirements. The Association encourages
interested citizens to attend the County Board meeting of
February 4th and speak in support of Arlington Blue Top Cab's
proposed project.

Home Depot

On February 13th, the proposed Home Depot project in Clarendon is
scheduled to be heard by the Arlington County Planning
Commission. It is currently scheduled to be heard by the County
Board on February 25th. To help our members better understand
the proposed project and any concerns that our neighbors in
Clarendon may have, Secretary Ragland contacted Jon Eklund,
President of the Courtlands Civic Association. President Eklund
stated that on Wednesday, January 18th the Courtlands Civic
Association members voted 55 to 2 against the Home Depot project
as it is currently proposed. President Ecklund commented that a
car and truck based high density warehouse operation, such as
Home Depot is totally inappropriate for an urban village.

Other concerns were described about the Home Depot project and
its potential adverse effects on traffic and parking in this area
and the potential spillover effects into our neighborhood.
President Ecklund stated that the Courtlands Civic Association
members do not agree with the traffic study done by the developer
and believe that the traffic will be much higher than what is
predicted in the traffic study. Also, he indicated that the
proposed project is not consistent with what is called for
in the General Land Use Plan (GLUP). The GLUP calls for a mixed
use development of office buildings, residential housing,
apartments, and stores. President Ecklund suggested that the
proposed Home Depot project be located in County areas that
already have warehouse type dwellings, such as the Pentagon City
area where the Price Club is located.

Secretary Ragland inquired whether the developer's traffic study
included any projections of increased traffic resulting from the
major George Mason University Campus expansion in our
neighborhood. President Ecklund indicated that he was not
familiar with the details and the assumptions of the traffic
study, but recalled that the assumptions about the potential
traffic from Washington, D.C. should Home Depot be built appeared
too low.

Representatives of the applicant will make a presentation to our
membership at the February 1st meeting. What are the views of
the civic association members regarding this proposed site plan?
If you have any comments or questions about the proposed project,
we invite you to bring them to the Wednesday, February 1st
Membership meeting, to be held at the Costa Verde Restaurant, 946
North Jackson Street (across from the Merit Gas Station at the
intersection of Wilson Boulevard, North 10th Street, and North
Fairfax Drive).

Update On The Parking Reduction For Stafford Place II

The Civic Association's NCAC Representative, Nancy Iacomini,
represented the BVSCA at the Arlington County Board meeting on
January 7th. Before beginning the highlights of NCAC
Representative Iacomini's public testimony, the Evans Corporation
has filed a site plan amendment requesting a special exception to
reduce the parking requirementfor the unbuilt office building
that is known as Stafford Place II. This site is located at 4101
Wilson Boulevard--between the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Building which is housed in Stafford Place I, Lincoln Towers, and
across from Ballston Common Mall.

The owners are requesting that the currently-required parking be
reduced from 315 to 237 spaces, and that shared parking be used
between Stafford Place I and II. This proposed reduction (which
would result in 25% fewer spaces) would be accomplished by
eliminating one level of parking. The reason cited for this
request is that currently, the National Science Foundation, the
occupant of Stafford Place I, is using very little of the parking
in their building. The owners are conducting a study to
determine exactly how much parking is going unused. They feel
the number could be as high as 60%.

While some spaces in Stafford Place I are not currently being
used, we need to remember that the National Science Foundation is
a tenant of the building, not a permanent occupant. At some
point a new tenant (or tenants) could occupy the building and
need all of the building's parking, and perhaps more. The needs
of the NSF could change, and they would need the parking. Also,
we need to remember that within the next 10 to 15 years, the
surface parking in Ballston will disappear due to the
construction of already-planned buildings. The only parking
available to residents, office workers, and retail customers will
be underground in the garages of the site-planned buildings. In
order to insure an adequate supply of this parking, we need to
have all the required spaces constructed.

In NCAC Representative Iacomini's public testimony to the
Arlington County Board, she indicated that the membership of the
BVSCA is always concerned about the growing problem of lack of
parking in our community. [Ms. Iacomini's statement has been
confirmed by our survey results the past two years. For example
in the October 1994 survey results, 76% of the 70 members
responding indicated that on-street parking was a concern (39%)
or a critical problem (37%).] And consistent with these
survey results, NCAC Representative Iacomini stated that the
[civic association] is opposed to the applicant's request to
reduce the amount of parking for the unbuilt building at Stafford
Place II. Just to reiterate to you some of the concerns that we
raised at the December 19th Planning Commission meeting, Ms.
Iacomini indicated that the applicant is requesting a 25%
reduction in the number of parking spaces for this
building--that's a rather large percentage when you can think of
how our built up that area is becoming. "We need to remember
that the Stafford Place II site is unbuilt and could be sold to
another developer, who might not wish to honor the shared parking
arrangement." It is equally possible that the building could be
constructed as a residential building instead of commercial, as
is currently planned. Either scenario could result in the need
for more parking than is currently being requested by the owners.

NCAC Representative Iacomini stated that we think it's premature
for the applicant to suspect that the parking spaces won't be
necessary. Again, the parking spaces is what is required. The
applicant is asking to take away what is the basic required
amount. The applicant is also basing their request on the notion
that the parking space in Stafford Place I are currently
under-utilized by the tenant, National Science Foundation. And
it is just that, a tenant with a 20 year lease. And the next
tenant, if there's a next tenant, or if they continue, they may
need the spaces that are now seemingly unused and not fully
staffed. They could conceivably change their operations, move
people in and out of that facility that would change the need for
the parking.

Foremost, NCAC Representative Iacomini stated that there was a
letter that was sent to the Zoning Administrator, Susan Ingraham,
dated November 18th by the National Science Foundation; and they
are adamantly opposed to the applicant's request from their
viewpoint. As their letter states, they disagree on the number
of unused spaces that the applicant says there are. They also
say they might staff up. Furthermore, Ms. Iacomini commented
that she spoke with someone from the National Science Foundation
yesterday, who told her their position had not changed. In fact,
it has become a little more firm because recently, Ms. Iacomini
stated that Mr. Vaughn told her that either Colonial Parking or
the owner of the building, he was unclear which, has contracted
with a local auto dealer to lease the spaces in the parking area
for the storage of this auto dealer's new cars, the stock for
their business. So that's made them even more nervous that there
is no extra parking.

Now with this latest development, NCAC Representative Iacomini
expressed her opinion that the leasing of the spaces indicates to
her there is no reason for the applicant to not build the spaces
that he is required to. Because at some point they will be used,
they either would be used by Stafford Place II tenant, they could
be used as storage places by the tenant, they could be leased to
a commuter, or they could be leased to someone outside. In light
of this, NCAC Representative commented to the Board that she
hoped that they would move forward with denial instead of
deferral. The County Board voted to defer this item to the March
4, 1995 County Board meeting.

Vernon Street Townhouses Project Approved

On January 7th, the Arlington County Board approved the Harmon
Company of Fairfax proposed site plan for 25 townhouses to be
constructed on the west side of North Vernon Street between
Washington Boulevard and 11th Street North. This area is zoned
R15-30T, which permits residential town houses and requires two
off-street parking places per unit. The developer's proposal
that the units be arranged in three courtyard groups with
vehicular access from North Vernon Street was generally approved
without modification. The units will be brick-faced and three
levels tall.

Each unit will have a garage and the end-units will have double
garages. The balance of the required parking spaces will be
provided in the courtyard areas. Fencing and landscaping will
surround the entire site.

Vice President Gillmore represented the civic association's
position on the proposed project, which was formalized in a
letter dated December 16, 1994 to the Arlington County Planning
Commission. The civic association's letter reflected concerns
expressed by members at the November 20th membership meeting that
the proposed on-site parking was inadequate. Vice President
Gillmore discussed the lack of adequate packing as one of the
"greatest problems that our neighborhood faces."

In these townhouse projects on Vernon Street and Vermont Street,
Vice President Gillmore stated there are a lot of unrelated
singles living there, each with an automobile. In those areas
where there is a minimum of 2 parking spaces required, it is not
enough parking for the area. Vice President Gillmore discussed
how the parking has gotten worse. He stated that parking is
extending north across Washington Boulevard onto Vermont and
Vernon Street. Also, he noted that frequently in the evenings
people are parking part way across driveways and taking up
street parking that sometimes are needed by the residents who
live in the 1200 blocks of Vermont Street and Vernon Street.

Vice President Gillmore recommended that the project be deferred
and that the applicant be asked to come back with a reconfigured
design to provide at least a third on-site parking space for each
of the units. Also, he suggested that the work be phased and
that at least 72 hours advanced written notice be given to the
homes in the area for any utility interruption expected by the
project. After considerable discussion by the Arlington County
Board and the applicant, Board member Jim Hunter motioned that
the proposed 25 townhouse project be approved [with no additional
parking requirements for guest parking] and Board member Ellen
Bozman seconded the motion. The County Board voted unanimously
to approve the project and asked the applicant, who agreed, to
closely coordinate project developments with the affected
neighborhood.

BVSCA Expresses Views At The County Board And Legislative
Meetings

At the Arlington County Board meeting of December 10, 1994 and
the Arlington County Legislators' public meeting of January 4,
1995, Secretary Ragland represented the BVSCA's positions in
support of an aggressive panhandling ordinance for Arlington
County and Initiative and Referendum rights for Virginians. All
of the Arlington County legislators to the 1995 Virginia General
Assembly were present at the latter meeting, which included
Senator Ed Holland, Senator Robert Calhoun, Senator Janet Howell,
Delegate James Almond, Delegate Judy Connelly, and Delegate Karen
Darner.

At both meetings, Secretary Ragland discussed the BVSCA's recent
survey results for the neighborhood survey conducted during a
three week period ending October 15, 1994. Secretary Ragland
stated that the survey consisted of eight different issue
areas. These included (1) Crime, (2) Land Use/Development, (3)
Parking/Traffic, (4) GMU Campus Expansion, (5) Current Local
Taxes, (6) County Government, (7) Quality of Life, and (8)
TopicalIssues. Of the 70 dues paying members responding to the
survey question on "aggressive panhandling," 67% responded that
aggressive panhandling was considered a concern (54%) or a
critical problem (13%). In addition, under the Topical issue
area, question on support of an aggressive panhandling
law/ordinance, Secretary Ragland indicated that 86% of the
respondents responded "yes" in support of a law/ordinance.
Secretary Ragland noted that this percentage response for an
aggressive panhandling law/County ordinance was the highest
percentage response to any of the 34 questions in our survey
questionnaire.

Secretary Ragland added, however, that he understood that
Arlington County Delegate Karen Darner was opposed to the
aggressive panhandling bill introduced last year, [Senate Bill
113, patroned by Senator Edward Holland (D-Arlington) and Senator
Robert Calhoun (R-Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County)
which was adopted by the State Senate on January 28, 1994.]

[The 1994 General Assembly Senate Bill 113 permits Arlington
County to adopt an aggressive panhandling ordinance. However, at
the request of the Chief Patron, Senator Holland, and the
opposition of Delegate Karen (D-Arlington), the bill was
carried-over to the 1995 General Assembly. The 1994 bill
proposed that Arlington County may provide by
ordinance for the regulation or prohibition of aggressive begging
or panhandling on public property or on privately owned property
which is open to the public. This bill included provision for
permitting police officers to make arrests for violations of the
ordinance not committed in their presence when any such arrest is
based on probable cause upon reasonable complaint of the person
who observed the alleged offense.

In response to the proposed bill, Delegate Darner indicated
opposition for several reasons. She stated the concept of
"aggressive panhandling" is open to many interpretations. Having
lived in a country for two years that had many
panhandlers/beggars everywhere, she indicated that her definition
would be markedly different from most other people. In addition,
Delegate Darner indicated that she had a great deal of difficulty
with the way Senate Bill 113 isdrafted. Delegate Darner added
the whole concept of "hearsay" is the foundation of the bill.
She also believes that it can lead to many falsely
founded charges, perhaps because someone looks, acts, or talks
differently.]

Because of Delegate Darner's previously expressed concerns about
the 1994 proposed Senate bill on aggressive panhandling,
Secretary Ragland suggested that the Arlington County delegation
consider the existing aggressive panhandling ordinance adopted by
the Sacramento City Council [on November 30, 1993] as a potential
alternative. [The Sacramento City ordinance reads as follows.

Legislative Findings and Statement of Purpose (Section
10.05.700)--The city council does hereby find that persons have
been soliciting alms and/or other items of value in the city in
such a manner as to cause citizens to fear for their safety.
There have also been instances where individuals provide
unsolicited services and then demand alms or something of value.
The public safety necessitates the exercise of the police power
of the city, through the enactment and enforcement of this
chapter, for the purpose of preventing such activities within the
city.

Section 10.05.701 Prohibited--(a) It shall be unlawful for any
person to coerce, threaten, hound, or intimidate another person
for the purpose os soliciting alms on any street or other place
that is open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned.
A violation of this section is an infraction. (b) It shall be
unlawful and an infraction for any person to provide an
unsolicited service and thereafter solicit or demand alms and/or
other items of value.

Section 10.05.702 Definitions--For the purposes of this chapter,
the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section: (a) "soliciting
alms" shall mean asking for money or something of value, whether
by words, bodily gestures, signs, or other means. (b) "coerce,
threaten, hound, or intimidate" shall mean that: (i) the
solicitor's conduct causes a reasonable solicitee to fear for
his/her safety; or (ii) the solicitor intentionally blocks the
path of the solicitee; or (iii) the solicitor follows the
solicitee while the solicitor demands money or something
of value after the solicitee informs the solicitor by words or
conduct that the solicitee does not want to give the solicitor
money or some other thing of value.]

Secretary Ragland stated that the reason why this city adopted
the above ordinance is that with the escalation in panhandling in
Sacramento, there were reports of an increase in the number of
individuals who were harassing or using strong-arm tactics to
coerce people into giving them money or other items of value.
Commonly called "aggressive panhandling" or "aggressive
solicitation," this type of panhandling goes beyond the simple
request for money. Victims may be pursued, badgered,
threatened or physically assaulted by the panhandler. Concern
over being confronted by aggressive panhandlers had led some
people into avoiding major shopping areas in Sacramento and
created a backlash against people peacefully seeking
contributions.

The ordinance adopted by Sacramento attempts to remedy the local
enforcement problem by specifically stating that coercing,
threatening, intimidating, and hounding people for the purpose of
collecting money or other things of value, is a violation of law.
This part of the ordinance is patterned after ordinances adopted
by the City and County of San Francisco and the Cities of Santa
Barbara and Beverly Hills during 1992-93. Secretary Ragland
recommended that the Arlington County Delegation consider the
Sacramento ordinance as a reasonable alternative if needed to
help resolve any human rights concerns. Also, Secretary Ragland
indicated that he had previously contacted the City Manager's
office [in April 1994] to inquire about the number of enforcement
actions taken for violations of the City of Sacramento ordinance.
In response, Secretary Ragland indicated he had been advised that
although no enforcement actions had been taken by Sacramento,
their ordinance was considered an effective deterrent simply by
having it on the books. As a consequence, the number of reported
aggressive panhandling incidents had been significantly
reduced.

Secretary Ragland recommended that the Arlington County
Delegation support Initiative and Referendum rights for the
citizens of the Commonwealth; and noted that our civic
association had voted to join the United Virginians for
Initiative and Referendum in December 1993. Secretary
Ragland added that the Arlington County Civic Federation had
included I & R in both their 1994 and 1995 legislative packages.

At the January 4, 1995 meeting, Executive Committee member
Dorothy Sticken expressed similar views on Initiative and
Referendum before the Arlington County delegation. Dorothy
Sticken spoke about BVSCA's support for Initiative and Referendum
(known also as "I & R") and why it is needed for Arlington
County. She cited the meals tax as an example because "it
impacts heaviest on the elderly and especially those on a fixed
income." Dorothy Sticken stated that the meals tax is also hard
on the poor working class and noted that the Arlington County
restaurants have enough trouble already." Further, Ms. Sticken
stated, "Fairfax County has no meals tax and Prince William
County has turned down the meals tax twice, resoundingly.
Arlington County voters were given no choice in the matter. We
need I & R. Twenty-five states now have I & R, it works. I hope
Virginia will be the 26th!"

What Is Initiative And Referendum

Initiative is the process by which a specified number of voters
may propose a law, constitutional amendment or ordinance and
compel a vote of the electorate on its adoption. Referendum
permits a designated percentage of the voters to place a law
or ordinance enacted by a legislative body on the ballot for
determination by the electorate whether it should shall go into
effect or be repealed. Currently, citizens of the Commonwealth
do not have the authority to place initiatives and referendums on
the ballot. Only the Virginia Legislature has this authority.
In contrast, 25 other states and the District of Columbia have
initiative and referendum rights for its citizens.

When the country was founded, the only methods available for
carrying out the will of the people were: (1) putting all
significant decisions to direct votes of the electorate, a system
suitable only to small jurisdictions, such as New England towns;
and (2) electing representatives for fixed terms,
which was the method adopted in Virginia and all larger
jurisdictions. At times, election of representatives for fixed
terms has proven unsatisfactory. Voters are often compelled to
choose between candidates none of whom they are in full agreement
with, and they need some way of expressing themselves effectively
on specific issues.

For example, the 1991 General Assembly of Virginia prescribed
that a public referendum was required before a tax on food and
beverages (known also as the "meals tax") could be adopted by
a local jurisdiction. At this General Assembly, the Arlington
County representatives requested by floor amendment an exception
to the public referendum requirement for the meals tax for the
County Manager Plan of Government, Arlington County. This
exception was approved and the bill was amended by the 1991
General Assembly to exclude Arlington County from the public
referendum requirement if the Arlington County Board members
voted unanimously to adopt such a tax and one public hearing was
held. Unlike Fairfax County and Prince William County, as
Dorothy Sticken indicated, who have held public referendums on
the meals tax which were soundly defeated by the citizens, the
Arlington County Board voted unanimously to adopt the tax.

Each of the current members of the Arlington County Board with
the exception of Board member Ben Winslow, voted to adopt the
meals tax and not allow the citizens of Arlington County to
decide whether they supported such a tax. Board member Winslow
was voted into office subsequent to the Arlington County Board's
vote on the meals tax in the special election of April 1993. In
his campaign for office in the special election, Ben Winslow ran
on a platform in support of Initiative and Referendum rights and
support of a public referendum to allow Arlington citizens to
decide whether they wanted to continue or repeal the meals tax.

Since the 1979 General Assembly, Initiative and Referendum has
been supported by members of both political parties in the
Virginia General Assembly, but the House and Senate joint
resolutions in support of Initiative and Referendum have not been
able to get out of the powerful Privileges and Elections
Committee for a vote. This is not surprising given that it took
almost 25 years to get the legislature to allow the elected
school boards issue to be put to a local vote. Virginia and its
localities have a number of other long-standing issues which
could be addressed through the initiative process, such as
environment, education, transportation, and crime issues.

The United Virginians for Initiative and Referendum is a
non-partisan statewide coalition of citizen organizations that is
proposing an amendment to the Virginia Constitution to give the
people the power to: (1) propose new laws by binding petition and
the ballot process to accept or reject them as law; and (2) adopt
or reject any law or section of a law enacted by the General
Assembly. If the I & R amendment is approved by the 1995
Virginia General Assembly, citizens of Arlington County
and other local jurisdictions will eventually have the authority
to place both state-wide and local initiatives and referendums on
the ballot.

Many leaders of the Democratic and Republican state parties of
the Commonwealth of Virginia support Initiative and Referendum.
For example, Lt. Governor Don Beyer, a Democrat; State
Senator Charlie Waddell, a Democrat; State Senator Janet Howell,
a Democrat; State Senator Robert Calhoun, a Republican; and House
Delegate Vincent Callahan, a Republican support Initiative and
Referendum for the citizens of the Commonwealth. It is also
interesting to note that Governor Allen in his State of the
Commonwealth Address on January 11, 1995 stated ... "These times
have changed also challenges to reform our own fundamental law
here in Virginia, our Constitutional Charter, so that you can
have a direct voice in the management of affairs at the state
level. If the General Assembly truly embraces this new vision of
freedom, if they trust the people as I do, then they must
understand that Initiative and Referendum is an idea who's time
has come. It's time to give Virginians this basic right to
direct the course of their government."

With the exception of Board member Winslow, the Arlington County
Board has continued again this year not to support these basic
and fundamental rights of initiative and referendum. If you are
interested in supporting I & R, one way you can help is to call
the Virginia General Assembly Constituent Services Hotline
toll-free number at 1-800-889-0229 and let the House Rules
Committee and/or the Privileges and Elections Committee know your
views.

Georgetown University To Open New Medical Center In Our
Neighborhood

According to the Northern Virginia Sun Weekly in its December 29,
1994 article entitled "G.U. to Open New Facility in Ballston" by
Sean Durkin, Georgetown University Medical Center officials have
announced plans to open early next fall their largest satellite
medical facility of the Washington metropolitan area in Ballston.
This 40,000 square-foot facility is to be located at 3833 N.
Fairfax Drive, and will offer primary outpatient and specialty
care. This facility will also house a community education suite
for wellness programs, a library, and a large "180-person
conference room." Construction on the new clinic will begin in
early 1995. The Ballston clinic is expected to open by
Labor Day of this year with a staff of 25 full-time physicians
and 50 support personnel.

First Combat Use of Aircraft In The U.S.--Ballston, VA

Our noted historian, institutional memory of Ballston/Virginia
Square and serving BVSCA Vice President, Deem Gillmore, uncovered
an extraordinary, but largely overlooked fact in his recent
research on the area. During the Civil War, when both armies
were almost within sighting distance of one another, the Union
Army, in possession of our immediate area, (then heavily wooded
and known as Balls's Cross Roads, sent a Professor Thaddeus S.C.
Lowe and crew high above the trees in a gas-filled bag (it was
said to be too crude to be called a balloon) to try to have a
better look at the Confederate movements. Upon the bag's
ascension however, rebel forces quickly spotted it and
a Lt. Thomas L. Rosser, in charge of the New Orleans Washington
Artillery section of the Confederate 2d Company, ordered his men
to fire.

Although the "bag" was not hit, Professor Lowe and Co. made a
hasty decent and from a historical standpoint, it may be said
that Ball's Cross Roads (later, in the 1890's, to become known as
Ballston) was the scene of the first combat use of aircraft by
the armed forces of the United States and the first use of
anti-aircraft artillery! President Sherretta proposes
that we select a sight somewhere in the Ballston area to
commemorate this significant historical event.

Neighborhood Crime Report

1050 North Stuart Street -- Burglary. A construction
company was burglarized between 5:45 p.m. Dec. 19 and 5:30 a.m.
Dec. 20. The door to the tool shed was forced open and tools
were stolen.

400 block of N. Thomas Street -- Burglary. Police arrested
five men for possession of stolen property when they responded to
a burglary call in an apartment at about 2:00 a.m. Jan. 1.

1100 block of N. Utah Street -- Robbery. A 33-year-old woman
was confronted at about 8:45 p.m. Jan. 3 by a man who implied he
had a gun. The suspect stole the victim's cash and a bank
card. He is described as a male, between 25-35 years old, and
about 6 feet and 2 inches tall and weighing about 200 pounds. He
wore navy pants and a Varsity brand jacket.

1100 block of N. Utah Street -- Robbery. A 27-year-old woman
was robbed at about 7:30 p.m. Jan. 6 when a man followed her as
she walked home from the Ballston Metro station. The man
grabbed the woman's purse and ran off.

3237 Wilson Boulevard -- Discharge of a firearm and
destruction of property. A bullet was fired through the front
window of the business, damaging three panes of glass and a sign.
This occurred between 8:00 p.m. Jan. 9 and 7:30 a.m. Jan. 10.

4201 Wilson Boulevard -- Robbery. A Colonial Parking
attendant at Ballston Commons was robbed at gunpoint at about
9:45 p.m. Jan. 10. The suspect approached the attendant, showed
him a gun, demanded cash and fled. The suspect is described as a
male, about 20 years old, about 6 feet tall and wearing dark
pants and coat.

400 block of N. Glebe Road -- Fugitive arrested. Arlington
Police arrested a fugitive wanted for murder in Miami, Florida,
Jan. 11. at 3:07 a.m. He is being held without bond pending his
extradition to Miami.

4000 N. 5th Road -- Vandalism. A window of the business was
forced open between 6:00 p.m. Jan. 13 and 6:00 p.m. Jan. 14.
Nothing was taken, but paint was poured on a customer's car
inside.